This website uses cookies to help us give you the best experience when you visit our website. By continuing to use this website, you consent to our use of these cookies. For full details visit https://www.iainabernethy.co.uk/legal-information

This website uses cookies to help us give you the best experience when you visit our website. By continuing to use this website, you consent to our use of these cookies. For full details visit https://www.iainabernethy.co.uk/legal-information

Search form

You are here

Kata X Dai and Sho

All
I have a question and as I don't practice "traditional" martial arts I'm looking to you guys to give me the answers.
We have various Kata that are practiced that have a "Dai" & a "Sho" variant to the Kata. What is the reason for this, are they completely different Kata or 2 Kata created from one major Kata.
The Kata that follow this concept that come to mind are:
Bassai Dai & Bassai Sho
kanku Dai & Kanku Sho
Gojushiho-Dai & Gojushiho-Sho
And Albeit a few others that some could add themselves
Thanks

I know for sure that this applies to Kanku Dai and Kanku Sho, and I'm willing to be money that it applies to the other two sets aswell. Kankudai and sho are derivative kata based on a single parent kata named Kusanku. Funakoshi spit the two at some point. I'm sure he had his reasons, but I couldn't tell you what they were.

I doub't that Funakoshi splitted the Kushanku into Dai and Sho. I doubt that Dai and Sho versions are splitted from one kata at all. I think it was Itosu who formulated new kata and called them ... sho.

I read a theory that makes absolute sense to me. It is originated by my preferenced source for karate history, Henning Wittwer, karate historian and author of two books on the history subject.

According to him, Dai and Sho were used to distinguish between two persons with the same name, like Junior and Senior. It is usual on Okinawa that the grand children were called with an additional gwa or sho in japanese. That system was used for Kata too.

So that would mean Bassai Dai is the older form and Bassai Sho would be the younger form.

As I understand it, Sho and Dai variants of kata are typically just different versions of the same kata as taught by different people. As an example, in his Butoku essay, Chibana Chosin (founder of Shorin-Ryu) wrote the following:

Chibana Chosin wrote:
I remember learning the kata Tadawa no Patsai (Passai/Bassai) from Tawada Sensei. At the time I was receiving instruction from Itosu and he, too, taught a version of Patsai kata which he called Matsumura no Patsai, which I learned. In 1913 or 1914, having practiced the Tawada no Patsai with all my heart, as was the custom back then, I approached Itosu and advised him of this. He asked me to demonstrate the kata for him. I did and Itosu then stated to me that was the finest performance of this rarely seen form that he had ever witnessed. He then told me that this form mut be preserved and passed on to future generations and to add it to his (my) teachings. So the Matsumura no Patsai is now called Patsai no Sho and the Tawada no Patsai is called Patsai no Dai.

Basically and broadly, it’s my view that the sho versions give us the “signature methods” of the dai versions (“originals”) – and alternate expressions of principles exhibited in the dai versions (possibly drawing from other versions of the kata in question) – in order to avoid lots of duplication now that kata that were originally created to be “stand alone” are now being practised as part of a collective set.

As alluded to above, there is also the factor that other versions of the kata will undoubtedly have existed so perhaps we see an attempt to record these “variations” within the sho versions too?

If you look at the Heians / Pinans we can see that the methods shown in them that are common with the dai versions are generally not in the sho versions; or we are given variations. The Heians / Pinans and the sho versions could therefore be viewed as a kind of rationalisation of all that went before? Itosu is often credited as being the creator of the sho versions as well as the Pinan / Heian series so who knows?

The view that the sho versions are there to “streamline” the practise of many kata (a practise not widespread before) and to ensure interesting / important variations are not lost seems feasible to me though and that what I go with as a working hypothesis.

I doub't that Funakoshi splitted the Kushanku into Dai and Sho. I doubt that Dai and Sho versions are splitted from one kata at all. I think it was Itosu who formulated new kata and called them ... sho.

"In later years, Sakugawa created a new kata to honor his Chinese teacher, Kong Su Kung. The kusanku kata of night-fighting techniques was the basis of shotokan's kanku sho and kanku dai. Kanku is the living heart of shotokan, and it comes from Sakugawa". -Dr. Bruce Clayton in Shotokan's Secret citing Shoshin Nagamine

Just look at the base kata, kusanku, the moves of both Kanku dai and sho are there. It's not an exact replica, but there's no denying that Kanku dai and sho are mainly derived from this kata.

Funakoshi Gichin learn a Kata named Kushanku from his teacher Asato (as well as Passai). That Kata is now known as Kanku Dai in Shotokan today. About a person by the name of Sakugawa is nothing really known. So how does Nagamine know? I don't know exactly but I think he learned his (Yara) Kushanki from Kyan. How can he be sure about (Kushanku) Kanku Sho when he is not part of a tradition were it never was tought?

In my eyes Kanku Sho was formulated by Itosu with additional methods or other variations. He called that kata the new Kanku or the younger Kanku (Kanku Sho - see the theory I posted above). Funakoshi never splitted a Kata into Dai and Sho versions, neither did Itosu (at least in my eyes). The Yara Kushanku and Matsumura Kushanku are not that different, but the specific methods from Kanku Sho (like the three Morote Ukes at the beginning or the Manji Uke followed by the Morote-Zukis or the Bo Uke) I can't find in any of those two Kata.

I believe that Funakoshi never learned Kata like Kanku Sho, Bassai Sho and stuff. Those were Kata his students brought home when they were send by Funakoshi to Mabuni Kenwa to learn more Itosu forms.

I particularly like iain's working hypothesis as it creates an interesting training / analysis challenge around intepretation/distillation of fighting principles taken from kata that have both a Dia and a sho Variant.

If you accept that the techniques performed in kata are examples to demonstrate a fighting principle, then maybe having at least two versions of the same kata available can provide additional insight into what Itosu believed the original fighting principles were...

What is also interesting is why are some Dia/sho variants very similar in terms of their embusen/general shape (Gojushiho sho/Dia or the Tekki's) whilst others are more strikingly different (Kenku dia/Sho etc)

Anyway I am now going to go away and have a play with Bassai Dia/Sho... :-)

I've been thinking about this for quite a while and came to a similar conclusion but mine is reversed.

It is nothing known about the origins of Jion, at least there are no written sources. Or maybe I simply don't know 'em. But there is something about Jiin.

Asato stated in an interview that a couple of tomari fighters learned kata from a shipwrecked dude.

In McCarthy's book Tanpenshu you can read on page 18 under "Direct Students":
A Fujian-Chinese from Annan who drifted to Okinawa taught "Chinto" to Gusukuma and Kanagusuku in Tomari. This same Fujian-Chinese teacher also taught "Chinte" to Matsumora and Oyadomari while Yamazato learned "Jiin" and Nakazato was taught "Jitte".

Because Itosu was a student and successor of Gusukuma and his fighting style and the fact, that all the Tomari fighters will surely have exchanged their Kata with each other, it is quite sure (at least in my eyes) that Itosu learned Jitte and Jiin. My working theory of the origins of Jion is that Itosu developed Jion as a record for additional methods or variations of Jiin.

So Jiin would be the Dai version and the younger, newer Jion would be the Sho version. And the similarities are quite obvious.

Asato stated in an interview that a couple of tomari fighters learned kata from a shipwrecked dude

Another one? That seems to have been a common problem - capable Martial Artists finding themselves shipwrecked on Okinawa. Was there some sort of inverse law about their seafaring and Martial competence?

Taking sarcasm aside, it makes me question the accuracy of any of the stories about Kushanku and so on.

The Chinto story (Matsumura learning Chinto from a shipwrecked) has no written source and is in my eyes pure fiction.

There is a written source compiled in 1762 (Oshima Hiki) on a man by the name/title/whatever Koshankin. He is noted for his outstanding skill of grappling/wrestling refered to as Kumiai Jutsu in the text.

So I think that is a strong indicator for the validity of the Kosokun/Kushanku/what not story.

Another one? That seems to have been a common problem - capable Martial Artists finding themselves shipwrecked on Okinawa. Was there some sort of inverse law about their seafaring and Martial competence?

ky0han wrote:

There is a written source compiled in 1762 (Oshima Hiki) on a man by the name/title/whatever Koshankin. He is noted for his outstanding skill of grappling/wrestling refered to as Kumiai Jutsu in the text.

Just to give a little extra information for both points:

There is book called “Motobu Choki and Ryukyu Karate” written by Iwai Kohaku. In that book there is an in-depth discussion on Oshima Hikki (“The note of Oshima”). Forum member Gavin Poffely was kind enough to provide me with an English langue translation of that section a few years ago.

The Oshima Hikki is document that includes interviews with the crew of a ship that ran ashore in Oshima Bay. In one of those interviews the captain of the ship tells of an impressive grappling demonstration he had recently witnessed by Kushanku. The captain tells us that Kushanku was not a physically strong man, and yet he defeated much larger opponents with ease. We are also told that Kushanku’s fighting methods involved placing one hand on the opponent whole striking them with the other (datum setting?) and highly effective “piercing moments with the legs” (Balance breaking? Kicking?). All very interesting stuff and it adds extra information and support to the oral traditions about Kushanku.

So the captain of the ship was shipwrecked, and he discussed Kushanku, but he was not a shipwrecked martial artist. So even skilled sailors can find themselves awash on the shores of Okinawa :-)